You say it’s off putting as if the Switch doesn’t have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It’s a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It’s not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable “Deck,” and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem…
Whether those games within that ecosystem are “quality” or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
No, the Switch is not such a device.
The article is very obviously about PCs. The Switch is not a PC.
Just because the switch runs a proprietary OS does not mean it isn’t a personal computing device. It can run Linux, it has a CPU and memory, it runs software, its a personal computer for sure.
You have a weird definition of platform “ecosystem”. How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer’s store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That’s being locked into an ecosystem by definition.
